"Pubs for all you racists"

[melthebell]

on a side note, went past a pub round here today on the way to work, its had little saint georges cross flags out for ages, now its got the whole front, and possibly back done as one lol

[I1L2T3]

They wasn't banned based on ethnicity, the group attending the conference was banned because the last time they attended the conference they cause troubled. So no different at all to football, one group of football fans causes trouble and they all get banned regardless of ethnicity, the same rule was applied to the conference goers, some of which were not travelers, you will note that only the travelers won compensation, the other people that was stopped from entering the pub did not win anything.

 

It is different because there are legal protections in place for minorities. And if in the view of the people banned it was on ethnic grounds and those people are from a minority then they can seek redress. In this case the judge agreed. It's that simple and therein lies the difference.

[mjw47]

They wasn't banned based on ethnicity, the group attending the conference was banned because the last time they attended the conference they cause troubled. So no different at all to football, one group of football fans causes trouble and they all get banned regardless of ethnicity, the same rule was applied to the conference goers, some of which were not travelers, you will note that only the travelers won compensation, the other people that was stopped from entering the pub did not win anything.

 

The point that you make regarding only the travelers winning compensation proves the point that the judgement against the pub was based upon Wetherspoons being guilty of ethnic and racial discrimination.

 

If Wetherspoons lawyers could have proven that it had nothing to do with ethnicity, and that it was simply the same as the treatment handed out to football fans on a regular basis then presumably they would have won the case?

 

The actual people who were banned did not cause trouble previously and so were banned purely on a presumption based upon their ethnic background, that's against the law.

[loraward]

It is different because there are legal protections in place for minorities. And if in the view of the people banned it was on ethnic grounds and those people are from a minority then they can seek redress. In this case the judge agreed. It's that simple and therein lies the difference.

 

So on that same note if a pub landlord bans a group of football fans and some turn out to have protected characteristics, the landlord could find themselves in trouble.

 

Do you accept that anyone can have the opinion that the judge got it wrong and that sometimes judges do in fact get it wrong.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 20:33 ----------

 

The point that you make regarding only the travelers winning compensation proves the point that the judgement against the pub was based upon Wetherspoons being guilty of ethnic and racial discrimination.

 

If Wetherspoons lawyers could have proven that it had nothing to do with ethnicity, and that it was simply the same as the treatment handed out to football fans on a regular basis then presumably they would have won the case?

 

The actual people who were banned did not cause trouble previously and so were banned purely on a presumption based upon their ethnic background, that's against the law.

 

The fact they stopped everyone regardless of ethnicity is proof that they didn't ban based on ethnicity. They was banned because the last time this conference took place, the people attending the conference caused trouble, no different at all to the football scenario.

Edited May 20, 2015 by loraward

[mjw47]

So on that same note if a pub landlord bans a group of football fans and some turn out to have protected characteristics, the landlord could find themselves in trouble.

 

.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 20:33 ----------

 

 

The fact they stopped everyone regardless of ethnicity is proof that they didn't ban based on ethnicity.

 

And the fact that the judge who heard all the story and the arguments from both sides found Wetherspoons guilty proves that they did.

 

No doubt the evidence of the police inspector, the barrister and the priest who were with the travelers was taken into consideration.

 

The CEO of Wetherspoons apologised, he had no need to do so but as he did he presumably accepted the judgement.

 

The football fans scenario wouldn't apply because the landlord would refuse admission based on an obvious allegiance to a particular team.

 

Any other rule tends to be disregarded when it comes to football fans, we don't like it but tend to accept it with varying degrees of good grace.

[I1L2T3]

So on that same note if a pub landlord bans a group of football fans and some turn out to have protected characteristics, the landlord could find themselves in trouble.

 

It depends, maybe......

 

If the fans thought they had a case then yes he could.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 20:52 ----------

 

 

Do you accept that anyone can have the opinion that the judge got it wrong and that sometimes judges do in fact get it wrong.

 

You're entitled to your opinion but the clues about this case are in the judgement that was very strongly worded and unequivocal. Even the chairman of Wetherspoons ate humble pie.

Edited May 20, 2015 by I1L2T3

[retep]

Would you really?

 

How do you know that? What scientific knowledge do you personally possess which brings you to that conclusion?

 

Both the universities of Edinburgh and Dublin were satisfied that the tests they carried out proved that " They are as distinct from the settled community as Icelanders are from Norwegians ".

 

Why would they make such a claim unless they were sure that they had proof of it's veracity?

 

Forty samples seems small to me but I know next to nothing about DNA testing and am therefore prepared to take the word of those who do.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why I shouldn't?

 

As for the landlord presumed, it turned out that he had no right to presume didn't it?

 

As explained to him in a court of law, meaning that he didn't have ' every reason to refuse ' and he won't make that mistake again will he?

 

Unless you could prove that the traveller is actually a traveller that goes back in time and not one that joined yesterday, I'd say you're going to need more than 40.

 

bet the legal team were miffed,

 

"A total of 18 claims were brought before the court - 10 were dismissed by Judge John Hand QC and the travellers ordered to pay JD Wetherspoon’s legal costs."

 

"The level of costs in the case incurred by the claimants’ lawyers was astronomical and unjustified, in my opinion.

 

"Even before the trial started, over £700,000 worth of legal costs had been incurred by them.

 

"I understand that the total costs, if all the claimants had have been successful, would have amounted to over £1million including success fees for the law firm concerned.

 

"This seems disproportionate for a total claim of less than £30,000. There has now been a change in the law which means lawyers can no longer recover these enhanced success fees in such cases.

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/12959216.Watford_pub_chain_JD_Wetherspoon_ordered_to_pay___24_000_for__direct_racial_discrimination__against_gypsies_and_travellers/

 

I dont think the landlord will be bothered he died before the case came to court.

Edited May 20, 2015 by retep

[Halibut]

Don't feed the apologists for bigotry. They'll die out soon enough anyway.

[the_bloke]

Reminds me of this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7979213/Gipsies-ride-horses-into-pub.html

 

The landlord felt he couldn't ban the travellers who had been frequenting his pub over many months because he was in fear of retaliation and they'd smash it up. Instead, he got shut down.

[I1L2T3]

Unless you could prove that the traveller is actually a traveller that goes back in time and not one that joined yesterday, I'd say you're going to need more than 40.

 

bet the legal team were miffed,

 

"A total of 18 claims were brought before the court - 10 were dismissed by Judge John Hand QC and the travellers ordered to pay JD Wetherspoon’s legal costs."

 

"The level of costs in the case incurred by the claimants’ lawyers was astronomical and unjustified, in my opinion.

 

"Even before the trial started, over £700,000 worth of legal costs had been incurred by them.

 

"I understand that the total costs, if all the claimants had have been successful, would have amounted to over £1million including success fees for the law firm concerned.

 

"This seems disproportionate for a total claim of less than £30,000. There has now been a change in the law which means lawyers can no longer recover these enhanced success fees in such cases.

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/12959216.Watford_pub_chain_JD_Wetherspoon_ordered_to_pay___24_000_for__direct_racial_discrimination__against_gypsies_and_travellers/

 

I dont think the landlord will be bothered he died before the case came to court.

 

Still wilfully ignoring the judgement in favour of 8 of the people..............